Justin_stacy
05/20/04, 12:33 PM
As it stands America, do to treaties signed more then fifty years ago, sees any attack on these nation as an attack on America its self and that their security is vital to American security....
Canada, Iceland, England, France, Holland, Luxembourg, Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Norway, Italy, Portugal, Spain, Turkey, Greece, Poland, Hungry, Czech Republic, Latvia, Lithuania, Netherlands, Romania, Bulgaria, Slovakia, Slovenia, Ukraine, Israel, United Arab Emirates, Oman, Bahrain, South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Philippines, Thailand, Pakistan, Australia, Argentina, Bahamas, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Trinidad and Tobago, Uruguay, Venezuela, Greenland (Denmark)..Even Antarctica, yes America, in all its intelligence is under treaty to protect Antarctica from foreign invaders!
My question is, Is the security of all these nations truly vital to American security? I mean yes an attack on London or Tokyo or Ottawa would probably be seen as a vital interest to America, but what about an attack on Warsaw or Riga or Vilnius or Prague? Are these nations really vital to America? Are they worth American deaths? Should we really be offering these countries total security, when they return nothing to us? Is this American money well spent?
Here are a few points of interest:
1) In the years leading up to the reunification of Germany and the "Liberation" of Eastern Europe, Russia was promised by the west and NATO, that NATO would not attempt to "expand" east.....But yet less then 10 years later Poland, Hungry, Czech Republic, Latvia, Lithuania, Netherlands, Romania, Bulgaria, Slovakia, and Slovenia are all now part of NATO, a direct contradiction of the 1991, closed door, agreement...
The question here is, What will happen when Russia regains her former power, which it will, and feels alienated or betrayed or threatened by these actions of Clinton and NATO? Will they attack these Baltic and land locked nations? If so America and NATO will have to respond, and inturn draw war on themselves from a Nuclear power......and for what I ask? What does Romania or Latvia offer America?
2) Before Germany was allowed back into "western society" and NATO it was cleansed of all Nazis officials and "substance".....But yet these former "Warsaw Pact" nations were never cleansed of their communist officials, nor were they driven from government, or the party its self "out lawed".....This mean America could be driven into war to defend a country controlled by those that once sided with Moscow and could possible still doing "business" with them...
3) Kalinsgrad, a Russian "Island," in central Europe, houses more Russian troops then that of the whole American army stationed in Europe. This means there is more Russian soldier within the boundaries of NATO, then there are Americans.
The question here is what will happen when Moscow demands a ground route, through Lithuania, to this 'island"? Will America or NATO stop this, is Lithuania's land "worth" American lives?
4) There are more retired Red Army soldiers and KGB officials living in Lithuania and Latvia, then their are actual soldiers....This means, in a war, America will be forced to "defend" the lives of long time enemy, and those that harbor more ties to Moscow, then to Washington.
5) In 1951 we signed a treaty with Philippines to "mutual security"....but in the 80's Manila expelled American soldiers from the Clark Airforce Base and the Subic Bay Naval Base...suggesting that Manila had chosen to renege of the agreement.....But in 1998, as China moved closer to setting up bases in the Spartly island chain, Manila's suggested that the treaty might be "invoked," "We don't think there will be a shooting war," said the Philippine Defense Minister, but, "as far as we see it, the mutual defense treaty may sill prove of value to us." This means America may be forced to defend a country that doesn't want our presence and wouldn't return the favor......
6) The Germany Chancellor ran on a ticket of "anti-American"...but yet found it insulting to Germany, when America announced that it might move bases out of Germany and into Poland....How can this be, we move base slightly to the east and its insulting, but a Chancellor running and winning based only on his promise of being anti-American not insulting?
The Question here is, why should we be obligated to defend nations that take us for granted and, nationally, treat us like shit?
7) America spends more on the Defense of South Korea, then the South Koreans do.
8 ) American military is to be cut from 2,070,000 to 1,453,000 soldiers....and is given only 3% of the GDP.....and all this is used, not to defend American soil, but to defend 58 different country most of which, like France, Japan, Korea, Latin America and the Baltic Nations...depend almost entirely on America for their defense and security.
The Question here is, Why should we defend these nations, with insufficient funds and man power, when we as a nations can't defend out own country along the Canadian and Mexican borders, Where we have a more direct worry for "national security"....?
I guess the point I’m trying to make, is that thanks to the treaties signed by past, and current, officials, future generations will be dragged into wars on land that has no relevency to America, and is in no way vital to American security.
It is time, especially since the Iraq war, that America tell our government that its time to allow other nations to pick their own destiny. America can not continue to defend and occupy nations that; use us, betray us, deny us access to their land, and who intently breed hatred for us. Yes, American can not isolate ourselves completely from the outside world but we should not be a "guardian angel" for nations that take us for granted......France, Germany and the EU have the money to defend themselves, Why don't they? The Baltic Nations know the Enemy they face, to the east, and should prepare for it on their own, Shouldn't they? Japan has one of the wealthiest economies in the world and the technology to develop their own Nuclear weapons, Shouldn't they be expected to defend themselves and spend more then 1% of their GDP on it? Mexico, Pakistan, France, Panama, Venezuela, Oman and The Philippines are no friend(s) of America, Should we real be under obligation to defend them? Korea has had 50 plus years to create and fund an army big enough to defend against North Korea, Isn't time we left it up to them?
Canada, Iceland, England, France, Holland, Luxembourg, Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Norway, Italy, Portugal, Spain, Turkey, Greece, Poland, Hungry, Czech Republic, Latvia, Lithuania, Netherlands, Romania, Bulgaria, Slovakia, Slovenia, Ukraine, Israel, United Arab Emirates, Oman, Bahrain, South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Philippines, Thailand, Pakistan, Australia, Argentina, Bahamas, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Trinidad and Tobago, Uruguay, Venezuela, Greenland (Denmark)..Even Antarctica, yes America, in all its intelligence is under treaty to protect Antarctica from foreign invaders!
My question is, Is the security of all these nations truly vital to American security? I mean yes an attack on London or Tokyo or Ottawa would probably be seen as a vital interest to America, but what about an attack on Warsaw or Riga or Vilnius or Prague? Are these nations really vital to America? Are they worth American deaths? Should we really be offering these countries total security, when they return nothing to us? Is this American money well spent?
Here are a few points of interest:
1) In the years leading up to the reunification of Germany and the "Liberation" of Eastern Europe, Russia was promised by the west and NATO, that NATO would not attempt to "expand" east.....But yet less then 10 years later Poland, Hungry, Czech Republic, Latvia, Lithuania, Netherlands, Romania, Bulgaria, Slovakia, and Slovenia are all now part of NATO, a direct contradiction of the 1991, closed door, agreement...
The question here is, What will happen when Russia regains her former power, which it will, and feels alienated or betrayed or threatened by these actions of Clinton and NATO? Will they attack these Baltic and land locked nations? If so America and NATO will have to respond, and inturn draw war on themselves from a Nuclear power......and for what I ask? What does Romania or Latvia offer America?
2) Before Germany was allowed back into "western society" and NATO it was cleansed of all Nazis officials and "substance".....But yet these former "Warsaw Pact" nations were never cleansed of their communist officials, nor were they driven from government, or the party its self "out lawed".....This mean America could be driven into war to defend a country controlled by those that once sided with Moscow and could possible still doing "business" with them...
3) Kalinsgrad, a Russian "Island," in central Europe, houses more Russian troops then that of the whole American army stationed in Europe. This means there is more Russian soldier within the boundaries of NATO, then there are Americans.
The question here is what will happen when Moscow demands a ground route, through Lithuania, to this 'island"? Will America or NATO stop this, is Lithuania's land "worth" American lives?
4) There are more retired Red Army soldiers and KGB officials living in Lithuania and Latvia, then their are actual soldiers....This means, in a war, America will be forced to "defend" the lives of long time enemy, and those that harbor more ties to Moscow, then to Washington.
5) In 1951 we signed a treaty with Philippines to "mutual security"....but in the 80's Manila expelled American soldiers from the Clark Airforce Base and the Subic Bay Naval Base...suggesting that Manila had chosen to renege of the agreement.....But in 1998, as China moved closer to setting up bases in the Spartly island chain, Manila's suggested that the treaty might be "invoked," "We don't think there will be a shooting war," said the Philippine Defense Minister, but, "as far as we see it, the mutual defense treaty may sill prove of value to us." This means America may be forced to defend a country that doesn't want our presence and wouldn't return the favor......
6) The Germany Chancellor ran on a ticket of "anti-American"...but yet found it insulting to Germany, when America announced that it might move bases out of Germany and into Poland....How can this be, we move base slightly to the east and its insulting, but a Chancellor running and winning based only on his promise of being anti-American not insulting?
The Question here is, why should we be obligated to defend nations that take us for granted and, nationally, treat us like shit?
7) America spends more on the Defense of South Korea, then the South Koreans do.
8 ) American military is to be cut from 2,070,000 to 1,453,000 soldiers....and is given only 3% of the GDP.....and all this is used, not to defend American soil, but to defend 58 different country most of which, like France, Japan, Korea, Latin America and the Baltic Nations...depend almost entirely on America for their defense and security.
The Question here is, Why should we defend these nations, with insufficient funds and man power, when we as a nations can't defend out own country along the Canadian and Mexican borders, Where we have a more direct worry for "national security"....?
I guess the point I’m trying to make, is that thanks to the treaties signed by past, and current, officials, future generations will be dragged into wars on land that has no relevency to America, and is in no way vital to American security.
It is time, especially since the Iraq war, that America tell our government that its time to allow other nations to pick their own destiny. America can not continue to defend and occupy nations that; use us, betray us, deny us access to their land, and who intently breed hatred for us. Yes, American can not isolate ourselves completely from the outside world but we should not be a "guardian angel" for nations that take us for granted......France, Germany and the EU have the money to defend themselves, Why don't they? The Baltic Nations know the Enemy they face, to the east, and should prepare for it on their own, Shouldn't they? Japan has one of the wealthiest economies in the world and the technology to develop their own Nuclear weapons, Shouldn't they be expected to defend themselves and spend more then 1% of their GDP on it? Mexico, Pakistan, France, Panama, Venezuela, Oman and The Philippines are no friend(s) of America, Should we real be under obligation to defend them? Korea has had 50 plus years to create and fund an army big enough to defend against North Korea, Isn't time we left it up to them?